[Suggestion] Change to Forum Rule 2.4 (TL;DR added)

[Testa]

What rule do you wish to Edit/Add: 2.4

Your version of the rule:

Users should only reply to the threads within the Ban Appeal, Warning Dispute, Refund Request and Action Request section if they were directly involved in the situation in question. When replying to Suggestions and Staff Applications users are expected to be constructive with their replies by providing their reasoning when providing the user a -support/arguing on the application. (better wording can always be amended)

Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:

If you're not used to jokes or receiving positive feedback from someone who you may perceive as your friend then this is the perfect forum rule for you to consider undergoing a change. Now generally when you receive/provide positive feedback on an enforcer application or suggestion you adhere to the ROTA requirements as referenced (https://perpheads.com/threads/enforcer-application-rules-for-replies.28718/) on the subsection on the forum. If you're unaware of what ROTA is, here's a copy and paste of what it says:

• Respectful - be nice, e.g. no unnecessary aggressive tone.
• Original - don't leave your reply as "I agree with x/y/z" - that's what the rating system is for.
  
• Truthful - you can make relevant accusations, but evidence must always be included.
• Advice - ultimately, for your reply to be constructive, you should suggest what steps the candidate takes to improve their prospects.

To further amplify my reasoning for this suggestion, now I'll provide sample text posted by staff which doesn't strictly follow the ROTA requirements, the individual will not be named as that's not the purpose of this suggestion:

'Ingvar Kamprad is dead, No need to joke about furniture.

Anywho ***** I have had one issue with you in the past when it comes to being a staff member its that you are diabetic always cop, i have seen you as civ sometimes but not interact with a lot of situation, please show yourself more IC.'

Now for those who may not have strong English skills (As I'm aware English isn't everyone's first language), this response is not positive (+Support), and critiques the users time as a police in-game rather to that of a civilian without providing valid evidence as stated in the truthful part of ROTA. Now here's a positive response, that doesn't necessarily fit all the requirements of ROTA but shouldn't need to, as it's a generally positive response to the user's application and to criticise may invalidate the user's original point:

'Althrough your activity is not the best and could be improved, I support this.
You're a friendly player, and a good dedication to the PD.'

Although evidence is not provided, to fulfill the ROTA requirements this positive feedback to the user has no ill intention of putting them off applying. POSITIVE COMMENTS ARE GOOD COMMENTS IN DOESN'T GET MUCH SIMPLER.

Just going to put this out there, please don't add these types of replies, I've already dealt with them at some point:
- 'That's what the comment rating is for hur dur lower brain functions' Oh weally?
- 'Positive comments need to be expressed Testa! I need to know why you love me so much!' Ask me on TS3 if you want to know so bad.
- 'This is obviosuly a response to your warning' Yes it is. You've got to find the mistake, before you can fix it, it's how life works.
- '-Support' You think you got jokes?

TL;DR: You'll live a much longer life, following common sense. Not all rules need to be black and white, as that's what kills freedom in players.

 

[money]

>sees diabetic
>wonders who else calls people diabetic

I don't see a change needed just add another sentence of something random or even a pic to bypass the rule.
Or alternatively you could use more adjectives

@John Daymon

 

[John Daymon]

The
R
O
T
A

system itself isn't something that can always be followed, in the reply that I took offense that someone had made a meme about IKEA Founder Ingvar Kamprad, I added it to show that I did not agree to it at all. I then stated what I think of Roxie and that I as an administrator who is one of the people who decides wether or not he gets enforcer how he can prove himself worthy to me.

 

[JC Denton]

I feel as if your thread is in response to your warning that you received for posting "Testa approves of this application".
It was a violation of 2.4 - you were not contributing towards the application whatsoever. Remember at school the P.E.E chart?

Anyways, as previously being staff you would know that any user's +support/-support/ratings do not actually affect the outcome of any enforcer application. The current system we already have called ROTA is fine as it is.

 

[Mage]

If this is because you're frustrated that your post "Testa approves of this application" got removed then this is beyond a joke. As if your fucking agree rating doesn't translate to the same thing. Better to have people not say anything than spam a thread with useless shit.

 

[LEWIS 088]

Denied.